I don't think that we should be involved in Syria really. It has it's pros and cons, but I say we hold out in isolationism until an actual threat to the US arises. HOWEVER...

I cannot stand people going on and on about how they know the REAL TRUE reasons for why we're interested in striking Syria; that because they read some shit on the internet (and geech, naturalnews.com is a notoriously error-ridden, fear-mongering institution, just by way of example) they are somehow privy to the secrets of an international conspiracy in which the US seeks to establish a one-world-government and blah blah blah. Believe it or not, the government is acutely aware of the fact that the Syrian rebels are a fucked up bunch and that there are plenty of Al Qaeda among their ranks. Do you really think that these people are not aware of this? Of course they are. This is one of the reasons why we wouldn't topple Assad's regime, only use a limited strike on certain facilities, because it would otherwise create a power-vacuum to be filled by people we don't like either.

And don't even get me started on Russia... I mean, no offense to any Russians here but that country is sliding further and further into the dark side thanks to Putin. Russia can't really be trusted to be objective in a situation like this, they're part of a string of allies (Iran, China, Syria, etc.) that have serious and disturbing issues with the Western powers. They're the real reason why we'd never get a resolution from the UN on this matter, because they have veto power on this and will exercise it infinitely when it comes to Syria. Yeah, we're facing pressure from Israel thanks to Iran, but not in the same way.

There are real problems in Syria. They aren't made up. Have we been looking to provoke a conflict with Syria/Iran for some time and are taking this as an opportunity to do so? I don't think so personally, but maybe. The real point of this whole thing is that over a thousand people (civilians) died from a chemical weapons attack. We don't know who was responsible. Could the rebels have obtained the weapons necessary for this? It's possible. But in terms of Occam's Razor, we're weighing the disorganized rebels who are known to have no chemical weapons nor any means of delivering them, against a volatile regime with a psycho in power who has many facilities that manufacture chemical weapons such as these and has the capability of delivering them. And we're supposed to take Assad, Russia and Iran's word that the Syrian government wasn't responsible. We've just got to wait on the UN report on the matter (which, as of now, is tentatively pointing to the government, based on the rebels apparent inability to manufacture and deploy these weapons).

Assad came to power in 2000. Some people initially thought he was going to be a reformer, he made a lot of statements about how he'd bring around democracy...eventually. but in the 11 years since he shook hands with the queen there he has delivered on none of his promises and only continued to become more dictatorial, severing peoples rights rather than enhancing them. There's plenty of info from the Human Rights Watch about how the regime tortures, imprisons, etc. people who disagree with them about anything. He's promised many times to reform his constitution and implement real democracy (he was "elected" after his father died and "ran" unopposed, and "received" 97% of the "vote"), but that hasn't happened yet and most likely won't.

If by "respectable standard of life" you mean literally living in a State of Emergency (military police state) since 1963...This whole thing (the Syrian Civil War) came about 2 years ago in conjunction with what is known as the Arab Spring, where, buoyed by one another's protests, the populations of many countries in the Middle East who had been long suffering under their oppressive governments rose up and marched, protested for their rights and liberties. You probably remember that from 2011. Well Assad didn't change for shit, and thus the Syrian Civil War begins. When all this happened, a LOT of good, decent people who wanted nothing to do with war and violence fled out of the country and a lot of people who wanted everything to do with war and violence and the potentially empty seat of power flocked INTO the country (Al Qaeda/Al-Nusra, etc.). Since the war began, Assad has been predictably killing thousands of not only rebels but innocent civilians, non-violent protestors, etc. He's not a great guy. Unfortunately, the dominant forces who would rise up in the event of his downfall are also not very great guys.

If by "respectable standard of life" you mean living in a State of Emergency since 1963...This whole thing (the Syrian Civil War) came about 2 years ago in conjunction with what is known as the Arab Spring, where, buoyed by one another's protests, the populations of many countries in the Middle East who had been long suffering under their oppressive governments rose up and marched, protested for their rights and liberties. You probably remember that from 2011. Well Assad didn't change for shit, and thus the Syrian Civil War begins. When all this happened, a LOT of good, decent people who wanted nothing to do with war and violence fled out of the country and a lot of people who wanted everything to do with war and violence and the potentially empty seat of power flocked INTO the country (Al Qaeda/Al-Nusra). Since the war began, Assad has been predictably killing thousands of not only rebels but innocent civilians, non-violent protestors, etc.

Ok, I am no expert on the conditions of life with in Syria over the past 20 years, however, I have today looked up travel videos of Syria, like my last post, on page 1, and life there seems ok. I don't know where you get this living in a state of emergency shit.

And yes, I know that he chose to use his army to squash the protests. However, my argument is, that why should any other country supply the rebels with weapons to prolong the war? And lets say the rebels topple him tomorrow? What do you think life will be like then? Any better or worse than it was before the war began? My guess is worse.

I recently saw a documentary on the people of Baghdad, how they live today. A group of young men who appeared very westernized. They were all dapped out in leather riding motorbikes doing tricks, like the Ruff Ryder's. They were asked which they preferred, life with or post Saddam. Each said with Saddam.

My point is, life might not be great in these countries, not to mention a major reason may be sanctions against them, but life is ok. The streets are safe, crime is low, people are fed, people receive educations. They live generally happy and productive lives. Now, in Iraq and Syria, that is a rarity.

I recently saw a documentary on the people of Baghdad, how they live today. A group of young men who appeared very westernized. They were all dapped out in leather riding motorbikes doing tricks, like the Ruff Ryder's. They were asked which they preferred, life with or post Saddam. Each said with Saddam.

My point is, life might not be great in these countries, not to mention a major reason may be sanctions against them, but life is ok. The streets are safe, crime is low, people are fed, people receive educations. They live generally happy and productive lives. Now, in Iraq and Syria, that is a rarity.

Yeah, I definitely prefaced my original rant by saying I don't support our intervening in Syria at this juncture. But we didn't start the Syrian Civil War, unless you want to go on speculation-based theories. France is an even bigger proponent for the downfall of Assad. MY point is, the people were not actually happy with their current situation, hence the enormous protests that took place. I mean, Iraq we definitely fucked up, or at least didn't realize it was inevitably going to be fucked up. I don't know who the guys they spoke to in that documentary were, their story, and all of that, and it's sort of unfair to compare the two, but I guess the question that you're wrestling with is "Is it better to live under an oppressive regime, where we have stability and potable drinking water, but may have our rights suspended or even get murdered by the secret police, or is it better to plunge into utter chaos and just see what happens?" It's a tough question. I'm not surprised some Iraqis feel we went the wrong route though.

I mean, Iraq we definitely fucked up, or at least didn't realize it was inevitably going to be fucked up. I don't know who the guys they spoke to in that documentary (@5.30minutes) were, their story, and all of that, and it's sort of unfair to compare the two, but I guess the question that you're wrestling with is "Is it better to live under an oppressive regime, where we have stability and potable drinking water, but may have our rights suspended or even get murdered by the secret police, or is it better to plunge into utter chaos and just see what happens?" It's a tough question. I'm not surprised some Iraqis feel we went the wrong route though.

Actually, there is an interview with Cheney stating why America did not topple Saddam after Desert Storm. The reason? The complicated ground situation. They knew the Shia, Sunni situation was a very sensitive one that would be a very messy situation if the goverment was removed. Why they did not consider this for the second time round? Not entirely sure. My guess is the philosophies of the New American Centrury Project. One where Donal Rumsfeld was an architect.

And I am sure there is a portion of the population not happy with Assad, there is probably an equal that is ok with him. Point is, America (and really I mean a few American men in high places), as part of the Project for a New American Centruy, feel that removing nations with oil, whose governments are generally opposed to thier interests (read corporate interests) should be removed.

Saddam, Assad, and Kadaffi were all communist, socialist, nationalist in there political philosophies. This is diametrically opposed to the corporate capitalist position. There is a great book called "Confessions of An Economic Hitman" that you should read if you have not. It gives a detailed account of the practices of the American government in aiding and abetting corporations to basically rape the lands of other nations. Support dictators who play by their rules, destroy those who don't.

The overall belief of this philosophy we are seeing with the Western approach to Iraq, Syria and Libya, is that these idiots feel that they will be better off if, they have control over these oil rich places. They feel they must act now, before another super power emerges that can challenge them. They are not considering the human cost, nor karma.

Wow.
I just watched half of the Al Bara Bombing segment. Once the reporter decided to go into the carnage, after the bomb was dropped was a little too much for my Sunday morning. Amazing tho. What balls to even consider entering such an area.

Main points I picked up...A. Historical secretarial division.B. Assad' s people ( alawite ) were out cast in the 14th century by a Sunni cleric.C. French Empire, basically paved the way to reinstate the Alawites over the ruling Sunni's.D. Assad's father a, socialist, nationalist, secularist, ruled quite harshly but created a stable country, something that did not exist for sometime. He was, because of this stabily, extremely popular.E. Assad, a Dr., trained in London, who married a Sunni, have hopes of reform, towards democracy, etc instead, fell back on strong arm tactics and use of force. Seems he was/is not much of a revolutionary leader. F. High unemployment, lack of modernization, the rise of the mafia, and isolation of the poor created a tinder box.G. The Arab Spring was a spark that set off the current revolution and war.

Saudi Arabia, a Sunni nation wants Assad out. He is a communist relic, secularist. Opposed to doing business with the west on thier terms, and not setting up a country run by Sharia law. America wants him out because he won't do business their way. Assad himself did not reform the country in a way that was positive to his people. A trifecta of stupidness.

Ok, I am no expert on the conditions of life with in Syria over the past 20 years, however, I have today looked up travel videos of Syria, like my last post, on page 1, and life there seems ok. I don't know where you get this living in a state of emergency shit.

Just do some research man, it's all over the internet, just type in Syria and "state of emergency" into google and you'll be able to put the pieces together. This is an article mentioning the temporary/permanent state of emergency), and the demand for its repeal, I'm sure there are plenty of better ones too.

This is sort of what I was trying to complain about in my original rant. You're not alone in knowing FAR more about the "New American Century Project" conspiracy theories than about the actual, real situation in Syria. it was a think tank not a legislating body, it was disbanded in 2006. Sure, it had influence in the Bush administration because he was an idiot who relied almost exclusively on his advisors for decision-making, but it doesn't exist anymore and Obama certainly wouldn't be following their doctrine. Unless maybe he's a lizard person. even if you believe they engineered 9/11...their supposed plan didn't work. It didn't work then and certainly wouldn't be attempted now, because the failure in Iraq hangs heavy over all of America's head and probably Obama's too. I know that the idea of a group of evil old white guys getting together to plot the secret takeover of the world is a very interesting idea, but focussing on that during this crisis is like reading a stephen king novel when you should be doing your algebra.

Syria ain't Iraq. We haven't imported any oil from Syria since 2011, and even then it was only 0.19% of the total national oil import, Syria isn't a major factor for us with oil like Iraq was. You can look all this info up. There's a pipeline situation potentially involved, but it doesn't directly affect us, it'd be bringing oil from Iran through Syria to potential buyers. And UNLIKE in Iraq, where the US went forward to protect its interests despite international opinion and based on bullshit smoke and mirrors, even the EU acknowledges that a war crime has been committed here.

Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney were very real, very disturbing boogeymen that we had to live with for far too long, and I hope you had all these facts about them back in 2004. But they're gone, they didn't establish a secret government that's gonna reinstate Hitler's brain as president-in-chief in 2016, and their war-mongering policies have been deemed unacceptable by the public. Why do you think the polls are so far in favor of non-intervention? We all remember what happened. Why does it have to be any more complicated than it already is? Nobody wants to get entangled in another Middle Eastern war, war crimes or no war crimes. We're so scarred by Iraq as a public that we won't even sanction a limited aerial strike at this point.

Well answer me this, why is the America government so eager to step beyond international law and strike a country illegally? Why not wait for the UN report? Why not determine if it was indeed Assad or the rebels, who, have so much more to gain by carrying out such an attack?

The US is eager to do so because they have the egocentric (but not entirely unjustified) belief that doing NOTHING will only embolden not only Syria but other countries like Iran or even North Korea. When a government uses chemical weapons to kill more than a thousand of its citizens and nobody does anything to reprimand them, it sets an unhealthy precedent in Obama's eyes. Who knows what might happen if other crazed leaders see that nobody's gonna stop them from doing stuff like this, or so Obama's thinking. And I know we're not the world police (hence my own disdain for involvement) but it is true that this type of war crime actually DOES justify action based on international law. Of course, he'd have to wait for UN approval for a "truly legal" route, but as I said Russia and China will literally never allow that to happen, probably even if the report comes back blaming Assad.

Obama's concerned (also not entirely unjustly) that the UN weapons inspectors were not given timely or appropriate access to the site, and that the government (who was preventing their access initially) could have tainted the evidence present at the site, to wipe their own involvement or to indicate the rebels somehow were responsible in a weird false-flag op aimed at sullying international opinion of the regime. Russia and China already vetoed a resolution in the UN Security Council about a week ago, supposedly literally without even reading it. And believe it or not, pretty much everybody else in the UN agrees that a "red line" was crossed.

Personally, I think we inevitably WILL be waiting for the UN report, your questions are a moot point. You're forgetting that even though he's itching to strike them, and he technically (in terms of US law anyway) didn't have to wait for anyone's approval at all, Obama's taking this to congress in light of the enormous public outcry against an attack. These are not the actions of a Bush-like autocrat. He's not going on about 10 thousand pounds of mustard gas and WoMD trying to scare us into a full-out war. and I honestly don't think congress will let him go ahead with it without first seeing the report. They know their constituents would not approve. The report will probably be made available roughly around the same time that congress will vote (next week), so we'll just have to see what happens there.

But if the UN report indicates that Assad is responsible for the attacks, will your opinions about the matter change at all? without the option of a UN resolution thanks to R+C, basically the only options on the table will be for the US, France, and Britain to either do nothing or to strike. I say we wait it out, but I certainly won't say that the people of Syria should be pleased about having Assad in power, particularly if he's spritzing them with sarin gas.

That argument while probably true, is weak. America created the current state of Iran, look up the Shah, they created the North Korea, look up Korean War. They create their enemies.

I liken American geopolitics to the biggest, baddest, healthiest kid in the class, being a real jerk. How do you expect the rest of the kids to react when their class room is dominated by an unjust bully?

lmao yeah but i guess the converse idea is that if a sickly, demented kid in the class was poisoning his brothers and sisters should the strongest kid punch him in the face with the prior approval of the majority of the class? Sure, we unwittingly created a lot of our own enemies, but America, unlike those enemies, is a government with constantly fluctuating representatives. it's not exactly fair to hold Obama and the current administration responsible for Reagan-era decisions. We've done some pretty fucked up shit in the past 50 years as a country, and we've left some pretty messed up situations in our wake. But that doesn't mean we can just hide in a hole now, we do unfortunately have to be a part of international politics. We're one of like 5 countries that even has the real capabilities for a strike, and the FIRST one people expect to handle this kind of stuff. Could we bomb them and then fifteen years later find out that that bombing created a radical, militant group hell-bent on the destruction of the US? Totally. Odds are probably pretty good in fact haha. I'm sure Washington is wellll aware of that by now. But doing nothing could go just as badly, as it has many times in the past.

You seem to have a lot of sympathy for poor Assad, or your disdain for American geopolitics is perhaps clouding your vision of him. We wouldn't even be going in there in some half-assed Iraq-esque attempt at regime change, we'd be bombing select chemical-weapons manufacturing facilities as a punitive measure for the murder of innocent civilians. If there was any evidence other than Syria and Russia's word to support the idea that any of the various bands of rebels had the capabilities to manufacture or more importantly deploy these weapons, I'd be skeptical right along side you. But the government has killed about 5x the amount of people that the rebels have killed during the civil war. Rebels killing thousands of civilians and then expertly framing the government would be a bit of a shock to me. We'll obviously have to wait for the report, but as of right now the consensus seems to be that most signs are pointing towards Assad.

I think a lot of people who started paying attention to politics during the Bush administration fail to recognize context. This is really more of a WWI-WWII era dilemma we're facing, except with crazy modern technology at our fingertips. It's not as if the US is alone on this one like Iraq, the whole world is talking about this attack. Pretty much nobody except Russia is arguing that NOTHING at all should be done about this. But I don't really think Assad poses any real threat to us as a country, and his cronies in Iran and Russia will only make shit unbearable for us if we strike, going against Israel and blah blah blah, thus I am against it. And if the majority of citizens in the US, France, and Britain alone do not want the strike, then it probably shouldn't happen.

I dont think you have read my posts. And anything I say you will rebuff, however I will say this...

As far as Assad goes, and your claims of my sympathy for him, if you had read my post, you will have seen that I said this about him.. "Assad, a Dr., trained in London, who married a Sunni, his people had hopes of reform, towards democracy, etc instead, he fell back on strong arm tactics and use of force. Seems he was/is not much of a revolutionary leader. " I continue... "Assad himself did not reform the country in a way that was positive to his people."

As far as your claim of "no one except Russia" is against strikes. I think you should google "Syria World opinion". Read these headlines. And you will see your opinion is incorrect.

There are protests around the world, the majority of Americans do not want to see a strike. You never answered my question as to why America can't wait for an official report on who is responsible for the act. And made no recognition of my point that the rebels have much more to gain and do have the ability to carry out such an attack.

I have seen proof in the chemical agents used and mortar delivery system used to deploy them. The western governments have simply said Assad did it. They have not provided any proof. Here are just a handful of articles stating the rebels have the capability and means to carry out such an attack and in fact did. (article1, article2, article3, article4, article5)

Radio, suckas never play me. (Point being, truth is squashed by the powerful if it is threat to them_ So Dont Believe The Hype Swamp Thing.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vQaVIoEjOM

okay this is quickly becoming a 2-person debate so I'm gonna bow out now, but I will just quickly reply.

When I said "no one but russia" I did not mean to say that no one but the people of russia favor not striking Syria. I meant that pretty much none of the governments involved in the United Nations other than Russia and China favor completely ignoring this situation (aka doing NOTHING, including non-violent sanctions). Hence my "red line" comment. Many governments are seeking a diplomatic solution, which would clearly be the best route in my opinion (even though in reality probably very unlikely to accomplish much). Opposition is quite strong world-wide for an air-strike-based response, particularly from the citizens of these countries (as opposed to the government of Britain for example). But I was talking about the leaders/governments of countries there anyway.

I did read that you finally watched a documentary on Assad and learned about how he's not the greatest. I was probably just responding to the whole poor-little-kid metaphor and the general ambivalence you seemed to show in all your other posts, like how he's just keeping his people fed and the quality of life etc., and your eagerness to believe the rebels are the ones at fault here.

Look I'm not gonna get into a debate about the media here, because that always ends up with "you're stupid for believing the new york times, I'll take naturalnews.com because it makes me feel like I REALLY know what's going on", or other accusations of believing the hype... but I would ask for the proof you claim to have actually SEEN, because those articles definitely don't do it for me. I could easily google "syrian rebels used sarin" and link a million websites of varying degrees of repute. I suggest you utilize a website like RationalWiki to give yourself a more objective view of the websites you get your info from, which have their own agendas that they are pushing as you claim the rest of the media does. And maybe, just maybe, your own predispositions towards government-mistrust are coloring what info you accept and reject.

As far as I can see, Mrs. DelPonte's statements are the only semi-reliable thing to indicate that the rebels did use the gas, and that information is several months old, certainly not based on the report, and referring to another incident which predates the sarin attack of August 21st. Her statements are based solely on testimony and even she admits that there is no concrete proof, only strong suspicions. Again, I'm happy to wait for the official UN report before definitively making up my mind about it, I'm an extremely skeptical guy. But until then and even afterwards my opinion is admittedly just that. Skepticism doesn't just mean believing every anti-government, anti-western statement you see, it means questioning everything including those statements.

Russia does not favour doing nothing. They are totally in favour of a political solution and for the UN to determine who used the weapons. They are for the rule of law.

I have a two pronged question for you. What do you think funding the rebels will result in? What is the ideal outcome? And if it is the fall of Assad, what do you think the realistic outcome will be? What will replace him? Again, Assad's father very much ran a police state, like Saddam. Not because it was "cool" but because he had to to unsure stability. As a result most people loved him. He brought peace and stability to a land that had up other wise been very unstable for a long time.

So my point is, why disable a land which is of no significance to you? They are no threat to America. They are a minor threat to Isreal. In the end, and why it enrages me is that it is only the people who will suffer and again, all the big oil and army supplies companies will profit. War is big business.

you're fighting invisible enemies here dog, I don't favor funding the rebels. I completely believe we should stay out of this shit. Go back a few of my comments and I explicitly state that there is no great outcome from Assad being toppled. said it a bunch. and again, I don't even favor the air-strike.

Russia's opinion, like your own, is that the Syrian rebels are responsible, not the Syrian government, and are thus not looking to punish or even condemn Assad, and won't be a part of any resolution that names the regime as the aggressors here. And pardon me for taking anything Russia says with a grain of salt, when Putin has turned the country into a police state of his own.

Can dictatorial regimes stabilize countries in turmoil? Absolutely. Assad's father was part of a military coup that ousted the civilian factions of the ba'ath party in favor of the military wing, and with an iron fist got everything under control. It worked for Hitler too; in the wake of WWI the nazi party was democratically elected into power and people loved them. Loved those mother fuckers! Do I think we should be forcing change in the middle east? No, I didn't think that in the early 2000's and the Iraq shitstorm certainly didn't change my mind. But when the people of a country rise up in record numbers to protest their dictatorial regime and then are murdered by the thousands, you can't tell me that's a good situation over there, regardless if there are some people who still are happy living in a dictatorship. It's both our job (as one of the strongest countries in the UN) and not our job (as an independent country with plenty of domestic problems and facing no threat) to reprimand potential mass-murder by chemical weapons, and that's the dilemma we're facing. We don't want their oil, we're not looking to drone-strike Assad and replace him with Al-Nusra, we're not trying disable the land, we're discussing the possibility of a limited aerial strike of military chemical weapons installations. I'm assuming you think this would leave Assad vulnerable to a rebel victory, but I don't really believe it would.

War is fucking bad. only dead victims and live victims are left in the end. Would corporations profit from war? absolutely, they always have. But until I find the Haliburton connection high up in this administration that is clearly manipulating events to their benefit, I won't be busting out that old familiar chestnut. Admittedly, war's a lot different now, but there was such a thing as justified conflicts once upon a time, and it's not impossible that there might be another. Syria wouldn't be it, at least not right now.

Obama's admittedly being pretty aggressive about it, but I think we can all be thankful that he's not going to do anything without congress's approval, and that at this point in history it would be a monumentally bad decision for congress to go against the strong will of the people.

I fully agree with you, however I am very skeptical of a country who has done so many dasterdly things to other countries to benefit its own interests. My main point here is, America has funded the rebellion escalating the violence and prolonging the misery of war. If they had stayed out all together the rebellion would have been squashed and people could go about their daily lives. Stability would be the norm, not violence and unrest.

Not to mention, the rebellion would not have half the strength it does if America had never entered Iraq. Many of the rebels have spilled over from a job well done there. How does America justify fighting them in Iraq and funding them next door?

Now, apparently a chemical gas attack occurred and a lot of rhetoric has come out of it. America is talking like it is a sure thing that Asaad did this and he must be punished or it sets a bad example. However they have not provided a shred of evidence tho claiming they have enough to break international law and launch missiles into a sovereign nation certainly killing at minimum hundreds more.

Definitely. But America is just one of a number of countries (France, Britain, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, etc.) who have been providing aid to the Syrian rebels. America didn't invent this conflict for their own devices, and France has been even more vocally supportive than the US. The US definitely is not specifically trying to fund the same people they're fighting, because it's not just Al-Nusra and other baddies that are fighting the regime, and Iraq only officially announced the Al-Nusra ties back in April. Yeah, they're the most violent, crazy mother fuckers in the opposition, but I think it's a misconception that everything and everyone in Syria was honky-dorey and happy until some Al-Qaeda guys infiltrated and started provoking unnecessary conflict, with the unexplainable aid of their enemy the US. The US does this shit all over the world, we fund rebels of regimes that oppress their people, sometimes in secret, sometimes openly. Not the greatest track record with that lately, but believe it or not some good does come from it sometimes. If the rebels were a unified and benevolent democratic movement would you support Western involvement?

We need to see evidence, bottom line. We can both definitely agree on that. Before anything happens. and let's hope it's nothing. I hope the UN report is conclusive, and that people are thus able and willing to accept it even if it goes against their pre-conceived notions. I know I will do my best.